Is morality objective Watch

EnglandisBlue
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Keep seeing this but always unsure as to what it suggests
0
reply
Jake Davies
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by EnglandisBlue)
Keep seeing this but always unsure as to what it suggests
Yes! And no. In my humble opinion.

I would argue for two types of morality:
Divine Morality: what God, a god or other external force views as bring right or wrong.
Personal Morality: What individuals perceive as being right or wrong.

You see, I would argue that morality IS subjective to the person. A man in the 1950's might perceive it as okay to be sexist (and can you really fault him?) whereas today it's a BIG no. However, if a god, or God, exists, then what they believe to be right and wrong could be deemed as the 'objective' opinion on morality.

Does that make sense? (if not, I'll explain it in more detail).
0
reply
Onde
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
It is objective as long as no one disagrees with you.
0
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Jake Davies)
Yes! And no. In my humble opinion.

I would argue for two types of morality:
Divine Morality: what God, a god or other external force views as bring right or wrong.
Personal Morality: What individuals perceive as being right or wrong.

You see, I would argue that morality IS subjective to the person. A man in the 1950's might perceive it as okay to be sexist (and can you really fault him?) whereas today it's a BIG no. However, if a god, or God, exists, then what they believe to be right and wrong could be deemed as the 'objective' opinion on morality.

Does that make sense? (if not, I'll explain it in more detail).
I don’t think what God sees as right and wrong is necessarily objective morality. Have you heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma?
1
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by EnglandisBlue)
Keep seeing this but always unsure as to what it suggests
Is it 'factually' objectionable to kill someone? No. Are humans inherently predisposed to take up moral positions as a matter of their social and psychologicla evolution? Yes.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
No. Morality is clearly culturally relative, as well as personal.
0
reply
username3489684
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
I did a project on this:
Mostly no, morality is based on social influences for example homosexuality in the victorian era was tabboo whereas now it is accepted. This is just one example of many. Also religion isn't a source of objective morality because in some religions god says it is moral to beat your wife and the people would do it because they are blinded by the religion. It's deffo not objective.
0
reply
HighOnGoofballs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
Nope, entirely subjective, although, many humans through nature and nurture do develop similar morals e.g. Racism is bad, helping is good etc.

To add a real life example, my friend is someone who strongly believes that the survival of the fittest is a good thing. He thinks that colonialism, imperialism and even mass slaughter are morally justifiable because those who are stronger inherently deserve to prevail.

It's actually very difficult to debate with him from a basic, fundamental moral perspective because our morals are completely different
0
reply
Nihilisticb*tch
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
Morality is objective and can be boiled down to a single statement :

In a given situation, the most moral option is the one which causes the least amount of suffering and in a situation where neither option causes suffering: the most moral option is the one that causes the most joy.
0
reply
Onde
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Nihilisticb*tch)
Morality is objective and can be boiled down to a single statement :

In a given situation, the most moral option is the one which causes the least amount of suffering and in a situation where neither option causes suffering: the most moral option is the one that causes the most joy.
There are ideologies that shun pleasure and those that treat the bearing of suffering as desirable, rather than something that people should devote their lives to eradicating.

You could say that for such people, they are doing what they think is the greatest good or most desirable way of living, but it could not be said to be something that is focused on the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of suffering.

There are also ideologies that are followed by a majority of the world's population that as part of their dogma say that individuals should be tortured for eternity, which in no sense can be said to bring about the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of suffering. You could say that such dogma is immoral, but many millions believe it to be perfectly moral.
0
reply
Nihilisticb*tch
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Onde)
There are ideologies that shun pleasure and those that treat the bearing of suffering as desirable, rather than something that people should devote their lives to eradicating.

You could say that for such people, they are doing what they think is the greatest good or most desirable way of living, but it could not be said to be something that is focused on the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of suffering.

There are also ideologies that are followed by a majority of the world's population that as part of their dogma say that individuals should be tortured for eternity, which in no sense can be said to bring about the most amount of pleasure and the least amount of suffering. You could say that such dogma is immoral, but many millions believe it to be perfectly moral.
See I think that most of these beliefs do boil down to relieving suffering. Christians and other religions believe that people should suffer in hell for eternity as this acts as a way of preventing people from doing wrong to other people which in turn prevents suffering. So yeah they could justify it that way.

And I know that other people have different opinions about morality but my opinion is essentially that they are wrong and that morality is objective in the way I described.

I do agree that one has to suffer in order to feel joy which is simply because if our brains produce too much of the happy hormones then we eventually become resistant to it and can't feel happy anymore. It's a bit like what happens with type 2 diabetes Where so much insulin is produced that their bodies become resistant to it. However I don't think suffering is brought about only by humans so there is no need for us to be deliberately immoral towards other as people will suffer for other reasons beyond our control.
0
reply
ggghhh111222333
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Well what the question means is this: is morality (the difference between right and wrong and possibly even the degreees of rightness and wrongness) universal, i.e known to everyone or is it something that can be can be deduced through arguments and logical reasoning.

The answer offcourse is no, infact there's no such thing universally, it's simply a by-product of evolution and our big brains. Moral nihilism is the only logically sound and valid argument available to us. Everything else is either logically inconsistent or relys on a supernatural basis.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Nihilisticb*tch)
Morality is objective and can be boiled down to a single statement :

In a given situation, the most moral option is the one which causes the least amount of suffering and in a situation where neither option causes suffering: the most moral option is the one that causes the most joy.
All well and good, except "suffering" and "joy" are subjective.
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by QE2)
All well and good, except "suffering" and "joy" are subjective.
So true, for me sitting in a McDonald's 'restaurant' and eating their 'food' would count as suffering.
0
reply
username4094562
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
Yes, morality is subjective. For example, in Asian cultures it was seen as okay to marry more than one person but the West believed polygamy to be immoral.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (109)
17.87%
It's just nice to be back! (166)
27.21%
Not great so far... (218)
35.74%
I want to drop out! (117)
19.18%

Watched Threads

View All